Why  the  CathoKc  Church 
Cannot  Accept  SociaUsm 

By 

Rev.  George  M.  Searle,  C.S.P. 


tfBRARY 


New  York 
THE  PAULIST  PRESS 
401  West  59th  Street 


COFYRIGHT,  I913,  BY  *'ThE  MISSIONARY  SOCIETY  OF 

St.  Paui*  the  Aposti^e  in  the  State 
OF  New  York  ' 


Why  the  Catholic  Church  Cannot 
Accept  Sociali$m. 


|T  may  seem  strange  to  many  who  have  a  fairly 

good  knowledge  of  the  teaching  and  practice 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  that  there  should  be 
such  a  conflict  as  we  find  existing  betv/een  it 
and  Socialism.  For  the  two  seem  to  have  a  strong  re- 
semblance; and  it  seems  that  there  should  be  sympathy 
rather  than  antagonism.  If  Socialism  meant  anarchy, 
of  course  the  conflict  would  be  easily  understood ;  for  the 
Church  is  a  well-ordered  and  governed  society.  But 
so  is  the  ideal  social  state;  in  it  everyone  has  his  proper 
place  and  regular  duties. 

And  the  ideals  or  aspirations  of  both  seem  really 
very  similar.  The  Church  fully  acknowledges  that  the 
highest  form  of  its  own  life  is  that  practised  in  its  relig- 
ious orders  or  communities,  which  is  modeled,  we  may 
say,  on  that  led  by  our  Lord  Himself  with  His  chosen 
Apostles  during  His  ministry  on  earth;  with  a  common 
purse,  in  charge  of  one  of  their  number,  for  the  common 
good.  And  this  form  of  life  was  the  one  adopted  in  the 
beginning  by  the  Church  of  Jerusalem.  It  did  not  be- 
come that  of  the  whole  Church  throughout  the  world; 

3 


but  that  was  not  because  it  was  disapproved  as  a  form 
of  life,  but  simply  because,  as  men  are  actually  con- 
stituted, it  could  not  be  successfully  carried  on  by  all. 
But  still  we  find  the  Church  reverting  to  it  here  and 
there,  in  her  religious  communities,  and  carrying  it  on 
most  successfully;  indeed  it  is  only  in  the  Church  that  it 
has  been  an  actual  success.  And  it  has  always,  when 
showing  signs  or  promise  of  such  success,  and  when 
undertaken  in  the  manner  necessary  to  produce  it,  been 
most  highly  approved  of  by  the  higher  Church  authority. 

Why,  then,  should  the  Church  condemn  in  mankind 
at  large  what  she  so  highly  approves  among  her  own 
members  ?  Why  should  she  tell  men  in  general  not  to  do 
what  she  so  strongly  recommends  and  indeed  invites 
some,  at  least,  of  her  own  children  to  do?  This  really 
seems  to  many  a  sort  of  scandal,  and  to  imply  that  the 
Church  is  not  quite  sincere  in  this  approbation  which  she 
gives  to  the  common  or,  as  it  may  be  called,  the  socialist 
life  in  her  communities,  but  only  tolerates  it,  her  au- 
thorities really  preferring  to  have  private  property  re- 
tained by  the  great  mass  of  her  members,  and  indeed 
to  a  very  large  amount  by  some  of  them;  and  this,  it 
may  be  said,  in  order  to  receive  substantial  assistance  for 
themselves  in  this  way. 

These  questions,  which  are  not  imaginary,  but  really 
raised,  are  not,  however,  so  puzzling  as  they  may  appear. 
Let  us  consider  the  matter  carefully,  and  we  shall  see 

4 


why  the  Church  cannot  adopt  the  socialist  programme  for 
a  general  one ;  why,  if  so  adopted,  she  must  regard  it  as 
dangerous  to  the  general  welfare. 

The  first  reason  is  that  what  we  may  call  the  fun- 
damental idea  of  Socialism  is  absolutely  erroneous,  and 
contradictory  to  Catholic  teaching.  And  that  idea  is, 
that  morality  is  a  matter  entirely  in  the  jurisdiction  of 
mankind,  instead  of  being  subject  to  the  law  of  God; 
that  it  rests  on  and  can  be  determined  by  popular  vote. 
This  idea  may  not  be  expressly  formulated  in  all  socialist 
teaching;  but  still  it  exists.  In  particular,  it  finds  utter- 
ance in  the  dogma,  generally  held  by  Socailists,  that  pri- 
vate ownership  of  land,  or  of  the  means  of  production 
in  general,  is  intrinsically  wrong,  or  at  any  rate  can  be 
made  so  by  popular  consent.  Some  Socialists,  still  recog- 
nizing that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  Divine  law,  would 
content  themselves  with  declaring  that  private  ownership 
is  contrary  to  this  law;  but  others  ignore  the  existence 
of  any  such  law.  Now  the  Catholic  Church  not  only 
holds  that  there  is  such  a  law,  but  also  that  private  owner- 
ship is  not  forbidden  by  it;  and  that  no  vote  or  consent 
of  mankind  can  make  it  otherwise.  The  Church  of  course 
admits  that  a  man  may  lawfully  abandon  this  right;  but 
she  denies  that  he  can  be  forced  to  do  so.  In  what  are 
called  the  solemn  vows  of  her  religious  orders,  such  an 
abandonment  is  made,  but  the  Church  takes  extreme 
care  that  it  should  be  perfectly  and  absolutely  voluntary, 

S 


and  that  even  such  vows  do  not  radically  abolish  the  ca- 
pacity of  those  who  make  them  to  hold  property,  so  that 
if  circumstances  justify  it,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Church, 
the  capacity  may  return. 

The  words  of  our  Lord  Himself,  Whom  some  So- 
cialists are  desirous  to  claim  as  the  first  of  their  number, 
are  quite  explicit  to  this  effect.  We  read  in  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gospel  (chap,  xix.) — and  the  same  event  is  also 
recorded  by  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke — that  a  rich  young 
rnan  came  to  our  Lord,  and  inquired  what  he  should  do 
to  have  life  everlasting.  Our  Lord  told  him  that  he  . 
should  keep  the  commandments ;  and  on  the  young  man's 
asking  Him  what  commandments  He  meant,  He  men- 
tioned i:e;^ei'^l  of  the  Ten  Commandments  of  the  Deca- 
logue, adding  also  that  of  loving  one's  neighbor  as  one- 
self. One  of  the  Commandments  He  mentioned  was, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  steal."  The  young  man  answered  that 
he  had  kept  all  these.  Our  Lord  did  not  say,  "  No,  you 
have  not,  for  you  have  no  right  to  possess  private  prop- 
erty of  your  own,  for  you,  in  doing  so,  are  taking  what 
belongs  to  the  community.'*  No,  He  acknowledged  that 
the  lawful  possession  of  private  property  is  not  stealing. 
But  on  the  young  man  asking  what  yet  was  wanting  to 
him,  our  Lord  said,  If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go  sell 
what  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt 
have  treasure  in  heaven;  and  come,  follow  Me."  In 
other  words,    Join  our  community."    You  will  notice 

6 


that  He  told  the  young  man  to  sell  what  he  had.  But 
how  could  he  sell  it,  if  it  was  not  really  his  to  sell? 
Now  notice  just  what  these  words  of  our  Lord  were  in 
reply  to  the  young  man's  repeated  question.  He  told 
him  to  sell  what  he  had  and  give  the  money  to  the  poor. 
But  He  did  not  absolutely  require  this.  He  told  the 
young  man  to  do  this,  if  he  ivanted  to  be  perfect. 

Now  the  Catholic,  and  really  the  only  possible,  ex- 
planation of  these  last  words  is  that  there  are  some  things 
which  a  man  may  do  to  please  God,  but  which  are  not 
required  as  of  obligation,  or  under  pain  of  sin.  These 
are  known  in  the  Church  not  as  laws,  but  as  "  counsels  of 
perfection."  They  principally  come  under  three  heads: 
namely,  the  renunciation  of  property,  of  marriage,  and  of 
one's  own  will  by  obedience  to  someone  to  whom  one 
gives  a  right  to  require  it  in  the  name  of  God.  This 
obedience,  of  course,  only  extends  to  actions  not  con- 
trary to  the  laws  of  God,  or  of  some  regularly  con- 
stituted general  authority — as  that  of  the  Slate — acting 
also,  of  course,  in  a  way  not  contrary  to  the  Divine  law. 

St.  Paul  writes  specially  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  (chap,  vli.)  of  the  second  of  the  counsels  just 
named.  He  himself  had  never  married.  He  says,  I 
would  that  all  men  were  even  as  myself ;  but  everyone 
hath  his  proper  gift  from  God;  one  after  this  manner, 
and  another  after  that.  But  I  say  to  the  unmarried, 
and  to  the  widows:  it  is  good  for  them  if  they  so  con- 

7 


tinue,  even  as  I.  But  if  they  do  not  contain  themselves, 
let  them  marry/' 

Now  in  religious  communities  or  orders,  sanctioned 
by  the  Church,  which  may  be  said  to  be  on  the  socialist 
principle  as  to  property,  the  two  other  counsels  which 
have  been  named  form  a  regular  part  of  their  rule. 
To  give  greater  security,  as  well  as  merit  in  their  observ- 
ance, all  three  are  usually  strengthened  by  vows  to  be 
faithful  to  them.  When  these  vows  are  taken,  they  of 
course  become  not  merely  counsels,  but  real  laws  of 
conscience;  that  of  obedience,  however,  only  being  so 
under  the  restrictions  mentioned  above.  No  religious  Su- 
perior can  require  anything  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God, 
or  of  the  regular  and  general  authorities  which  God 
has  established. 

These  religious  communities  have  been  the  only  ex- 
periments on  the  socialist  principle  with  regard  to  the 
first  counsel,  that  of  the  renunciation  of  private  property, 
which  have  ever  succeeded  for  any  length  of  time.  And 
notice  that  they  all  rest  in  the  beginning,  for  each  in- 
dividual, on  a  voluntary  act  on  his  or  her  part.  And, 
also,  the  Church  has  always  regarded  this  act  as  one 
resulting  from  a  special  call  or  inspiration  on  God's 
part.  She  has  distinctly,  especially  at  the  Council  of 
Trent,  forbidden  even  parents  to  compel  their  children 
to  make  such  an  act.  She  holds  that,  as  St.  Paul  says, 
everyone  has  his  proper  gift  from  God.   This  gift  from 

8 


God  she  calls  a  "  vocation/'  And  she  requires  such  a 
vocation  even  for  the  priesthood,  on  account  of  the 
second  counsel  as  well  as  on  account  of  the  special  sacred 
duties  and  responsibilities  which  those  becoming  priests 
undertake.  She  even  requires  this  vocation  for  the 
orders  preparatory  for  the  priesthood,  of  deacon  and 
subdeacon. 

It  is  or  should  be  plain,  then,  why  the  Church  does 
not  and  cannot  look  with  favor  on  the  idea  of  making  the 
socialist  regime  or  arrangement  binding  by  law  on  all 
citizens  of  the  State  at  large.  It  can  only  work  suc- 
cessfully when  adopted  by  each  individual  with  absolute 
freedom  of  choice,  and,  moreover,  with  a  special  Divine 
call.  To  establish  it  as  the  right  course  for  all,  is  in  her 
judgment  simply  a  case  of  "  fools  rushing  in  where 
angels  fear  to  tread." 

"  But,"  it  may  be  asked,  "  if  this  life  in  community 
with  property  in  common,  is  so  pleasing  to  God,  why 
should  He  not  give  this  special  call  to  all  who  would  like 
to  have  it,  and  make  it  a  success  for  everyone,  instead  of 
merely  for  a  few?"  This  is  a  question  which  may  be 
interesting,  but  one  which  no  one  has  any  Divine  com- 
mission to  answer.  The  important  fact  is  simply  that 
He  does  not,  and  that  tfiere  5s  no  reason  to  think  He 
ever  will.  With  all  the  care,  both  for  the  sake  of  the 
community  and  of  the  individual,  that  the  Church  takes 
in  the  matter,  there  are  many  who,  though  at  first  fully 

9 


persuaded  that  they  have  a  vocation  to  this  common  or — 
as  we  call  it — religious  life,  find  on  trial  that  they  must 
have  been  mistaken.  An  actual  trial  of  it  is  usually 
necessary,  and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Church 
insists  on  what  is  called  a  novitiate,  or  time  of  experiment 
for  everyone  desiring  to  engage  in  it.  It  is  not  probable 
that  many  who  have  a  Divine  vocation  to  it  refuse  to 
make  this  experiment;  so  there  cannot  be  many  who 
would  succeed  in  it  outside  of  those  who  actually  try. 
But  the  proportion  of  those  who  even  try  is  exceedingly 
small,  and  many  of  those  who  do  try  fail.  So  it  is  evi- 
dent that  a  vocation  to  it  is  a  very  rare  one,  even  among 
Catholics,  who  have  every  encouragement  to  make  the 
trial. 

It  does  not,  then,  require  any  great  perspicacity  to 
see  what  would  be  the  result  if  everyone  should  be 
required  to  make  it.  All  would  like  to  have  it  tried,  if  it 
simply  meant  that  they  should  have  a  share  of  other 
people's  property ;  but  when  it  came  to  giving  up  their 
own,  the  result  would  not  be  satisfactory,  even  if  their 
own  subsistence  were  secure,  as  is  the  case  in  most  of  the 
religious  communities  of  the  Church.  There  is  absolutely 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  if  all  were  required  to  adopt 
the  socialist  manner  of  life,  all  would  be  contented  with 
it.  In  our  religious  communities,  those  who  find,  in  the 
novitiate,  that  it  does  not  suit  them  can  leave ;  and  indeed 
they  can  do  so  even  afterward.   No  force  compels  them 


to  remain.  And  they  can  even  obtain  proper  permission 
to  do  so.  But  in  a  socialist  state,  comprising  all  citizens, 
such  ^YOuld  not  be  the  case.  The  great  majority,  in  fact, 
would,  if  not  returning  by  a  revolution  to  the  previous 
conditions,  return  to  them  individually  by  disregarding  its 
regulations  so  far  as  possible,  and  by  securing  for  their 
own  use  as  large  a  share  of  the  goods  of  life  as  they 
were  able.  You  can  say  no  one  can  consider  anything 
as  his  own;  but  you  cannot  prevent  his  using  it  as  his 
own,  if  he  wishes,  and  has  an  opportunity  to  do  so. 
And,  furthermore,  there  must  be  officials  of  some  kind 
in  the  social  state,  as  well  as  in  any  other;  indeed  every- 
one in  it  would  be  a  sort  of  official,  with  regular  duties 
and  responsibilities.  In  other  words,  you  cannot  prevent 
what  is  known  as  grafting any  better  under  Social- 
ism than  you  can  as  things  are  now.  The  only  thing 
that  can  effectually  prevent  it  is  conscience,  which  says 
to  a  man :  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal  f  and  the  force  of  this 
Commandment  is  much  weakened  if  you  tell  him  that  no 
individual  has  any  real  right  to  property.  As  it  is  now, 
people  have  much  less  scruple  against  defrauding  the 
government  than  they  have  against  cheating  an  indi- 
vidual ;  and  there  is  no  reason  why  the  government,  in 
a  socialist  form,  should  acquire  a  peculiar  sanctity  in  the 
general  estimation. 

The  only  way  in  which  a  sorlalistic  government  can 
hope  to  succeed  would  be  the  same  way  in  which  the 

II 


religious  orders  succeed,  that  is  to  say,  by  an  enthusiastic 
and  persistent  devotion  to  its  principles  on  the  part  of 
the  whole  people.  Simply  establishing  it  will  not  produce 
such  a  devotion. 

Of  course  Socialists  claim  that  if  it  is  once  intro- 
duced, everyone  will  find  its  results  so  agreeable  that 
such  a  devotion  to  it  will  arise.  But  that  is  a  mere  as- 
sertion, not  borne  out  by  facts,  even  in  the  case  of  relig- 
ious communities,  which  always  tend  to  lose  their  first 
fervor  instead  of  increasing  it,  though  every  individual 
member  has  in  the  first  place  entered  upon  this  life 
voluntarily. 

For  this  common  sense  reason,  the  propaganda  of 
Socialism,  if  carefully  considered,  even  though  merely 
advocating  that  all  should  begin  by  entering  on  it  volun- 
tarily, cannot  be  considered  as  resting  on  a  sound  basis. 
Human  nature  cannot  be  expected  to  undergo  a  complete 
and  radical  change.  If  such  a  change,  or  rather  such  a 
victory  over  human  nature,  can  only  be  expected  in 
those  who  are  the  very  best  disposed,  and  the  least  selfish 
of  all,  who  have  made  the  sacrifice  of  their  own  property, 
and  of  all  except  the  necessities  of  life,  in  a  Catholic 
religious  order,  and  if  even  some  of  these  fail  to  per- 
severe in  these  unselfish  dispositions ;  how  can  it  be  ex- 
pected to  continue  steadily,  even  in  those  who  first  en- 
tered into  the  socialistic  agreement ;  and  how  much  less 
can  this  be  expected  in  their  children  and  their  children's 

12 


children,  or  in  immigrants  who  for  various  reasons  enter 
into  a  socialistic  state?  There  are  quite  enough  as  it  is 
who  refuse  to  admit  the  obligation  in  conscience  of  sub- 
mitting to  any  government  at  all ;  anarchists  we  call  them. 
How  many  more  will  there  be  if  sacrifices  such  as  the 
socialistic  plan  requires  are  exacted  of  them?  Even  il 
you  succeed  in  convincing  them  that  private  ownership 
is  essentially  wrong,  or  can  be  made  so  by  popular  vote, 
how  can  you  expect  them  to  persevere  in  this  convic- 
tion, or  to  receive  it  as  a  certain  dogma  from  their  prede- 
cessors, in  face  of  the  numerous  and  urgent  temptations 
to  a  contrary  opinion? 

No;  Socialism,  even  if  adopted  in  the  only  possible 
way  that  the  Church  could  approve,  that  is  to  say  in  the 
way  in  which  it  exists  in  her  religious  orders,  by  a 
perfectly  free  and  voluntary  consent,  would,  as  was  said 
in  the  beginning,  lead  only  to  disaster;  simply  because  it 
is  certain  that  the  consent  of  human  nature  to  it  would 
not  persevere.  Catholics  hold  that  perseverance  in  the 
voluntary  poverty  of  the  religious  life  can  only  be  ob- 
tained by  a  special  grace  of  supernatural  help  from  God, 
which  He  will  grant  to  those  whom  He  has  called  to  that 
special  virtue,  but  which  it  would  be  rash  to  expect  with- 
out such  a  call.  To  expect  everyone  to  persevere  in  it, 
simply  because  they  had,  even  voluntarily,  begun,  would 
really  be  almost,  if  not  quite,  as  rash  as  to  expect  men 
in  general  to  keep  absolute  virginity  through  life,  which 

13 


is  of  course  the  only  lawful  alternative  to  the  state  of 
matrimony.  And  if  the  poverty  of  the  religious  life 
is  not  kept  perfectly,  the  evil  only  affects  the  delinquent, 
or  at  most  the  particular  religious  house  to  which  his 
example  may  spread;  and,  moreover,  if  he  finds  his 
virtue  inadequate  to  it,  he  can  be  permitted  to  go.  But 
in  attempting  the  same  thing  in  a  whole  nation,  the  gov- 
ernment will  be  a  failure,  either  by  the  neglect  of  its 
principles  or  the  departure  of  its  citizens.  The  idea 
that  everyone  will  be  even  a  passably  good  citizen  under 
it,  is  simply  a  rose-colored  dream.  It  invites  and  is  sure 
to  lead  to  corruption,  and  consequent  failure  and  disaster ; 
for  it  is  asking  from  nature  more  than  it  can  accomplish 
without  a  special  supernatural  help.  The  world  in  gen- 
eral may  not  believe  this,  but  we  Catholics,  if  under- 
standing our  religion,  know  that  it  is  true.  This  is  a 
auite  sufficient  reason  for  us  to  oppose  the  socialist  plan. 

Strangely  enough,  there  is  another  of  the  special 
virtues  belonging  to  religious  communities  which  Social- 
ists would  force  on  the  public  at  large.  This  is,  evi- 
dently, the  virtue  of  religious  obedience.  The  socialist 
plan  necessarily  involves  this.  In  the  present  state  of 
things,  as  far  as  the  government  is  concerned,  a  man  is 
quite  probably  able  to  fit  himself  for  and  enter  upon  any 
occupation  which  seems  to  him  most  agreeable  and  suit- 
able to  him.  But  on  the  socialist  plan  he  must  be  assigned 
to  his  occupation  according  to  the  needs  of  the  commun- 

14 


ity,  rather  than  his  own  preference.  He  is  to  be  assigned 
to  his  post  very  much  like  an  officer  or  soldier  in  an 
army.  Some  pressure  may,  of  course,  under  the  present 
system,  be  put  on  a  young  man  in  this  way  by  his  parents 
or  others;  but  he  can  generally  manage,  if  he  has  a 
decided  preference,  to  gratify  his  own  desire.  He  may 
want,  for  instance,  to  become  a  medical  man;  and  prob- 
ably be  able,  at  least,  to  try.  But  in  Socialism,  the 
government  must  decide  what  will  be  the  best  disposal 
of  him  for  the  common  good.  If  it  considers  that  there 
are  enough  doctors  already,  or  that  he  could  do  better 
at  something  else,  off  he  goes  to  that  something  else. 
He  is,  indeed,  very  much  like  a  Jesuit;  for  the  Jesuits 
make  a  special  point  of  the  virtue  of  obedience.  But 
there  are  not  so  very  many  Catholics  who  have  a  real 
vocation  to  be  Jesuits.  The  socialist  young  man,  however, 
has  to  be  as  good  a  Jesuit  as  he  can,  without  any  special 
vocation.  From  our  somewhat  extended  experience,  suc- 
cess is  hardly  probable.  It  is  not  likely,  indeed,  that  he 
will  even  desire  it.  Love  of  the  socialist  regime,  even 
if  he  has  it,  is  far  from  being  as  strong  a  motive  as  the 
love  of  God. 

It  would  seem,  then,  very  improbable  that  Social- 
ism can  succeed  in  enabling  the  average  citizen  to  sacrifice 
his  liberty  in  the  way  that  it  is  sacrificed  in  religious 
communities.  It  is  liberty  which  is  more  prized  than  any- 
thing else  by  men,  especially  at  the  present  day  and  fn 

IS 


a  country  like  ours;  and  the  restraints  placed  on  it  by 
government  are  very  slight  with  us.  But  Socialism  in- 
creases them  very  decidedly.  The  only  way  in  which  the 
obedience  of  a  religious  community  can  be  observed  is  by 
regarding  it  as  paid  to  God  through  His  representative 
in  the  Superior;  and  Socialism  does  not  present  this 
motive  to  us.  Religion  is  a  side  issue  with  it ;  a  man  may 
be  religious  if  he  wishes ;  it  does  not  undertake  to  prevent 
him  from  being  so;  but  certainly  religion  has  nothing 
to  do,  in  the  socialist  idea,  with  his  duties  in  the  State. 

If  we  now  consider  the  remaining  one  of  the  three 
virtues  of  the  religious  community  life,  that  of  absolute 
chastity,  it  is  quite  evident  that  this  does  not  and  can- 
not form  a  part  of  the  socialist  plan,  unless,  as  among 
some  non-Catholic  communities  like  the  Shakers,  inviting 
all  to  join  them,  it  were  proposed  as  a  fitting  preparation 
for  the  end  of  the  human  race.  Socialism  may  then  be 
considered  as  being  the  community  life  on  the  basis  of 
the  other  two  virtues  of  poverty  and  obedience ;  in  other 
words,  of  the  renunciation  of  individual  ownership  and 
of  individual  will.  But  even  with  these  it  is  quite  ar- 
duous, as  has  been  seen. 

It  may  be  presumed  that  for  absolute  chastity,  So- 
cialism would  substitute  the  married  state,  as  the  world 
in  general  does  now,  always  has,  and  always  will.  If  it 
w-C/nW  abandon  the  idea  of  union  for  life  in  marriage,  that 
<ji  ^SS>Virse  would  be  more  than  enough  to  make  any  appro- 

i6 


pk}  of  it  by  the  Church  utterly  impossible.  We  would 
4)$ed  nothing  more  to  show  why  it  could  not  be  accepted 
by  us.  We  assume,  then,  that  Socialism  is  to  include 
marriage  and  the  natural  existence  of  families. 

But  here,  again,  a  difficulty  immediately  arises, 
namely,  who  is  to  have  charge  of  the  family?  The  logical 
conclusion  of  the  socialistic  scheme  would  seem  to  be 
that  the  ownership  of  it,  as  of  property,  must  reside  in 
the  State.  It  must  be  supposed  to  belong  to  the  State, 
though  perhaps  under  the  principal  care  of  the  parents. 
But  radically,  like  everything  else,  it  must  be  a  State 
asset,  and  to  be  taken  care  of  as  the  State  directs.  And 
this  seems  to  be  the  usual  socialist  view,  as  actually 
held  by  those  who  thoroughly  develop  that  view  or 
theory. 

Now  here  we  have  an  irreconcilable  difference  be- 
tw^een  the  teaching  of  Socialism  and  of  the  Church.  In 
the  Catholic  view  it  is  to  the  parents,  not  to  the  State, 
that  the  direction  of  the  children  is  divinely  committed. 
Even  in  case  of  the  neglect  of  the  parents,  or  of  their 
death,  the  State  has  no  absolute  right  over  them.  It  only 
has  the  right  to  see  that  they  are  brought  up  to  be  good 
citizens,  not  to  injure  the  State  or  their  fellow-citizens, 
and  to  obey  the  laws  of  the  State  when  these  are  not  con- 
trary to  the  law  of  God.  It  must  leave  them  to  the  con- 
trol of  the  parents  in  other  matters,  as  long  as  they  need 
such  control.    They  are  the  natural  guardians  of  their 

17 


own  children,  and  the  State  must  not  take  this  natural 
and  Divine  right  to  guardianship  from  them. 

The  parents  are  responsible  to  the  State,  in  some  mat- 
ters, as  has  just  been  said;  but  beside  this  the  Catholic 
view  is  that  Catholic  parents  are  also  responsible  to  the 
Church  in  other  matters,  particularly  in  regard  to  the 
religious  instruction  of  their  children.  And  it  is  here 
that  practically  a  very  serious  Catholic  objection  to  So- 
cialism comes  in. 

This  difficulty  is  felt  even  now  to  a  great  extent  in 
the  exaggerated  ideas  prevalent  as  to  the  functions  of 
the  State  in  this  matter.  And  it  would,  in  all  probability, 
be  much  increased  by  the  still  more  exaggerated  idea 
of  the  State  which  is  inherent  in  the  socialistic  theory. 

Religion,  with  us,  is  not  simply  a  matter  of  senti- 
ment, to  be  felt  or  carried  out  by  each  individual  ac- 
cording to  his  own  private  taste  or  preference.  It  is,  in 
our  view  and  belief,  a  system  of  truths  and  consequent 
practical  duties  coming  to  us  as  a  revelation  from  God, 
through  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  and  committed  to  an 
organization  founded  by  Divine  authority,  and  known  to 
us  as  the  Church.  We  do  not  regard  the  Church  as  simply 
a  society  like  others  in  general,  based  on  mutual  consent 
and  for  mutual  convenience.  No;  we  look  upon  it  as  a 
Divine  association,  into  which  Almighty  God  requires 
that  all  should  enter,  though  many  may  be  excused  from 
sin  in  not  doing  so  by  ignorance  of  its  claims.    But  for 

i8 


those  who  do  belong  to  it,  its  orders,  when  acting  in  its 
proper  spiritual  sphere,  are  as  binding  as  any  laws  of 
any  State  can  be.  And  we  cannot  agree  that  any  secular 
government  has  a  right  to  override  its  orders,  or  ignore 
its  laws,  even  though  that  government,  personally,  should 
be  in  the  hands  of  men  who  are  Catholics;  and  still 
greater,  necessarily,  is  the  difficulty  if  they  happen  to  be 
men  who  do  not  recognize  the  claims  of  the  Church, 
or  who  are,  perhaps,  infidels  or  even  atheists. 

There  is  no  need  that  we  should  prove  our  position 
on  this  point  at  present,  or  even  to  show  any  reason 
for  it;  we  are  only  saying  what  the  fact  is  with  regard 
to  our  belief  in  this  matter ;  and  why,  finding  considerable 
difficulty  as  we  do  from  the  opposition  to  this  belief 
generally  prevailing  now,  we  cannot  be  inclined  to  accept 
a  system  like  Socialism,  in  which  the  difficulties,  owing  to 
the  overweening  claims  of  the  secular  authority  under  the 
system,  would  become  much  greater  than  they  now  are. 
The  probability,  of  course,  with  regard  to  the  last  point, 
concerning  the  family  and  children,  is  that  the  Socialist 
State  would  insist  on  Socialism  being  taught  in  all  schools, 
and  the  Catholic  view  of  the  authority  of  the  Church 
being  entirely  repudiated. 

Let  it  be  thoroughly  understood  then,  that 
I.    The  Church  does  not  reject  Socialism  in  the 
sense  of  a  voluntary  agreement  as  to  the  renunciation  of 
individual  property,  or  the  sacrifice  of  the  individual  wiii 

19 


among  a  certain  number  of  chosen  souls  called  by  God  to 
this  renunciation  and  sacrifice,  and  specially  aided  by  His 
grace  to  carry  it  out. 

2.  She  does  absolutely  reject  it  as  far  as  it  teaches 
that  individual  ownership  is  forbidden  to  all,  or  that 
the  only  right  condition  of  things  in  any  nation  is  the 
thorough  subjection  of  all  to  the  State  system  which 
Socialism  proposes. 

3.  She  holds  that  this  system,  so  far  from  being  the 
only  right  system,  is  fraught  with  great  dangers  to  the 
liberty  which  we  all  so  highly  prize;  since  it  is  not  in 
human  nature,  unaided  by  a  special  grace,  to  carry  it 
out  in  the  perfection  necessary  to  its  success;  and  that, 
therefore,  corruption  is  sure  to  ensue  in  it,  and  the  vir- 
tues which  it  requires  to  become  tyranny  on  the  part  of 
some,  slavery  on  that  of  others. 

Now,  in  conclusion,  it  must  also  be  thoroughly  un- 
derstood that  the  Church  fully  realizes  the  great  evils 
which  have  grown  up  by  the  accumulation  of  immense 
amounts  of  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  which  threatens 
to  reduce  the  great  majority  of  mankind  to  a  condition  of 
practical  slavery,  and  that  she  sympathizes  with  the  advo- 
cates of  Socialism  in  their  desire  to  abolish  these  evils ;  but 
that  she  simply  rejects  this  special  plan  as  being  primarily 
founded  on  statements  as  to  human  rights  which  are  abso- 
lutely false,  and  which,  if  carried  out  in  practice,  would 
tend  to  increase  these  very  evils  rather  than  to  abate  them. 

20 


The  Catholic  World 


THE  NATIONAL  CATHOLIC  MONTHLY 

ESTABLISHED  IN  1865 

A  Magazine  for  Clergy  and  Laity 

jfEvery  Catholic  should  know  the  great  social  and  reli- 
gious problems  of  reconstruction. 

^Tlie  Catholic  World  covers  these  problems:  states  the 
principles  that  guide  in  their  solution. 

IfEndorscd  by  the  Holy  Father. 

IfRecommended  by  the  American  Hierarchy. 


Subscription  price,  $4.00  a  year. 

Single  copies,  40  cents. 
Sample  Copy  Sent  on  Request 


THE  CATHOLIC  WORLD 
120  West  60th  Street 
New  York  City 


